brain_batch_read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the batch limit of 5 and the read-only nature, but says nothing about error handling, partial failures, truncation behavior, or path interpretation. This is adequate but leaves room for richer disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'up to 5' sets the limit and 'in one call' signals batching.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and incomplete schema descriptions, the one-line description is too thin. It omits key operational details like max_chars semantics, what happens if more than 5 paths are provided, and path format expectations. The output schema may cover return shape, but it cannot compensate for missing parameter and edge-case context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies paths refer to vault files, but does not explain what 'paths' means (e.g., relative vs absolute) or what 'max_chars' controls (per file vs total, truncation behavior). The parameter titles alone are insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('vault files'), and a distinguishing constraint ('up to 5... in one call'). This clearly separates it from the sibling brain_read (single-file read) without needing to inspect schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'in one call' conveys that this tool is for batching multiple file reads, which implies use when you need several files at once. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear given sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.